Simply because they are identical.
Consider an analogy:
Imagine that you can travel across the universe by walking. You have an infinite amount of time to do this, but you must make your journey by taking small steps. You have no destination, but you can go anywhere and you must never stop walking.
A thousand years pass. Where are you now? Further.
A million years pass. Where are you now? Even Further.
A billion years pass. Where are you now? Far, far away.
For every iteration of time, you will have traveled further and further. It is inevitable, for every small step takes you further. It is not possible to not travel far.
Microevolution is the small step. Macroevolution is the collective of small steps over a large period of time.
When walking for billions of years, how can you not be far away from your starting point?
If you accept microevolution
Moderator: Moderators
- jamesmorlock
- Scholar
- Posts: 301
- Joined: Thu May 26, 2011 4:26 am
- Been thanked: 1 time
If you accept microevolution
Post #1"I can call spirits from the vastie Deepe."
"Why so can I, or so can any man: But will they come, when you doe call for them?"
--Henry IV
"You’re about as much use as a condom machine in the Vatican."
--Rimmer, Red Dwarf
"Bender is great."
--Bender
"Why so can I, or so can any man: But will they come, when you doe call for them?"
--Henry IV
"You’re about as much use as a condom machine in the Vatican."
--Rimmer, Red Dwarf
"Bender is great."
--Bender
-
- Guru
- Posts: 2359
- Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2016 8:40 am
- Has thanked: 2022 times
- Been thanked: 797 times
Re: If you accept microevolution
Post #321I'm not sure if this will help, but here goes anyways:Dimmesdale wrote: ↑Fri Mar 12, 2021 2:34 pmI don't think I do misunderstand. If science doesn't regard its theory as proper fact, why should a layman do so? By the descending process of authority, there is no factual basis, in other words. On the other hand, willy nilly, a layman can accept just about any "fact" if he wanted to. In any case, science hasn't proven itself: it remains at the level of theory, as you yourself seem to argue, if I understand correctly.
In science, we can only say that all data collected so far points to a given conclusion. A proper scientific theory is falsifiable, so if someone can find conflicting data, then the theory will have to be updated or tossed out for a better one that encompasses all observable, repeatable data.
Example:
I ask you to hold a bowling ball over your toes. Based on all previous observation, are you going to let go? Probably not, because all your previous data points to the prediction that you will end up with broken toes. Does this mean it is a "fact" that always letting go of a bowling ball over your toes equals hurt toes? Are you sure?
What happens if we now take you on an airplane and repeat the experiment. If the pilot noses over into a reduced G maneuver what's going to happen? Is it still a "fact" that the bowling ball will hit your toes? Now we have new data and have to incorporate this into the overall theory about dropping things.
As more data is collected, we can see that dropping things and the current force of gravity and/or your own acceleration matters as to what happens. We have a new "fact" that must take into account more variables.
This is the same with any scientific conclusion. We can't just say that something is 100% fact since we may not know all the variables involved and some new data may come to light. However, as a layman, one can accept that here on Earth, sitting in my living room, it's pretty certain that if I drop a bowling ball over my toes I'm going to regret it. If my house were to suddenly drop into a sink hole or a tornado suddenly sucks up my entire house, it will no longer be a fact that the ball will hit my toes. However, that's pretty unlikely so I rest on my "fact" and don't drop it.
Huh? Making predictions, then testing those predictions by making observations will be obsolete in a century or two? That's a pretty odd claim.Dimmesdale wrote: ↑Fri Mar 12, 2021 2:34 pm Wait and see. I have a very good feeling what we call science now will be obsolete in a century or two.
- DrNoGods
- Prodigy
- Posts: 2716
- Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:18 pm
- Location: Nevada
- Has thanked: 593 times
- Been thanked: 1642 times
Re: If you accept microevolution
Post #322[Replying to Dimmesdale in post #322]
layman theory = scientific hypothesis
laymen fact = scientific theory
scientific fact = no such thing (formally)
So the phrase "just a theory" is the same as the scientific phrase "just a hypothesis", and there is no equivalent formal term "scientific fact" ... that is a layman term only. So when the theory of relativity, or the theory of evolution are described as "theories", it means they have advanced passed the hypothesis stage (due to extensive supporting evidence) and are accepted as correct descriptions by the scientific community, and by most people who don't think science is a con job or a conspiracy (such as flat earthers).
There have been plenty of science contributors who have no formal science education but educated themselves and made major contributions. One of my favorites is Oliver Heaviside:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_Heaviside
Turned himself in a brilliant mathematician by studying Maxwell's original works, and refomulating his EM equations.
My point is about the formal meaning of the words hypothesis and theory in science, vs. theory and fact in layman's terms. These are not the same. The relationship is essentially this:In any case, science hasn't proven itself: it remains at the level of theory, as you yourself seem to argue, if I understand correctly.
layman theory = scientific hypothesis
laymen fact = scientific theory
scientific fact = no such thing (formally)
So the phrase "just a theory" is the same as the scientific phrase "just a hypothesis", and there is no equivalent formal term "scientific fact" ... that is a layman term only. So when the theory of relativity, or the theory of evolution are described as "theories", it means they have advanced passed the hypothesis stage (due to extensive supporting evidence) and are accepted as correct descriptions by the scientific community, and by most people who don't think science is a con job or a conspiracy (such as flat earthers).
See above ... the highest "level of fact" in formal science is a theory. I'm not saying that a layman can bring anything to the table or contribute to advancement of a hypothesis, short of learning enough about the science of the issue that he can be considered a scientist, in which case he/she can contribute. It is semantics ... you keep saying "fact", but that word is not relevent to how the scientific method works to transition a hypothesis to a theory. It is a layman's term only (fact), while formal science uses the word theory when a hypothesis has so much supporting evidence, and no falsifying evidence to shoot it down, that it is accepted as the most likely correct explanation.But since you yourself admit that formally this doesn't come to the level of fact, I don't see what any layman has to say that can make it graduate to that level. What "special ingredient" are you thinking that the layman brings to the table? This actually sounds mystical to me.
There have been plenty of science contributors who have no formal science education but educated themselves and made major contributions. One of my favorites is Oliver Heaviside:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_Heaviside
Turned himself in a brilliant mathematician by studying Maxwell's original works, and refomulating his EM equations.
And I have no doubt there were people who said that two centuries ago, and two centuries before that, etc. Curiosity about the natural world and the methods used to investigate and understand it will never be obselete as long as humans are around (or whatever we may evolve into in millions of years time, or be replaced by). That is what science is after all.Wait and see. I have a very good feeling what we call science now will be obsolete in a century or two.
In human affairs the sources of success are ever to be found in the fountains of quick resolve and swift stroke; and it seems to be a law, inflexible and inexorable, that he who will not risk cannot win.
John Paul Jones, 1779
The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain
John Paul Jones, 1779
The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain
- Dimmesdale
- Sage
- Posts: 805
- Joined: Mon May 29, 2017 7:19 pm
- Location: Vaikuntha Dham
- Has thanked: 30 times
- Been thanked: 94 times
Re: If you accept microevolution
Post #323I accept that the term 'theory' in science is more than a hypothesis. I accept that, and don't wish to argue it. It is more than a hypothesis on the basisthat some standard of evidence (which you regard as legitimate) corroborates it somehow or other. That it meets necessary criteria (whatever those may be). I don't see any problem with that. From that point of view, it is legitimate.DrNoGods wrote: ↑Fri Mar 12, 2021 6:00 pm [Replying to Dimmesdale in post #322]
My point is about the formal meaning of the words hypothesis and theory in science, vs. theory and fact in layman's terms. These are not the same. The relationship is essentially this:In any case, science hasn't proven itself: it remains at the level of theory, as you yourself seem to argue, if I understand correctly.
layman theory = scientific hypothesis
laymen fact = scientific theory
scientific fact = no such thing (formally)
So the phrase "just a theory" is the same as the scientific phrase "just a hypothesis", and there is no equivalent formal term "scientific fact" ... that is a layman term only. So when the theory of relativity, or the theory of evolution are described as "theories", it means they have advanced passed the hypothesis stage (due to extensive supporting evidence) and are accepted as correct descriptions by the scientific community, and by most people who don't think science is a con job or a conspiracy (such as flat earthers).
But I reject everything. I reject the theory and the evidence pointing to it as well. I reject the whole set of premises underlying it. This is because I have a completely different philosophical framework that essentially says the world is a place of illusion and that scientists are basically in illusion. And an illusion, however fine it may be, however rich and multivaried and intricate, is not factual.
Take the sun shining on a mirror. The sun in the mirror is bright. The sun in the mirror is hot. The sun in the mirror is also yellow! THREE PIECES OF EVIDENCE! But the sun in the mirror is not the actual sun. It just looks like it is.
Science in my view is a con (not all of it, but much of it), but a con of a very high caliber. I too subscribe to a flat earth.
- DrNoGods
- Prodigy
- Posts: 2716
- Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:18 pm
- Location: Nevada
- Has thanked: 593 times
- Been thanked: 1642 times
Re: If you accept microevolution
Post #324[Replying to Dimmesdale in post #325]
Say no more. I can see how you would not accept evolution as a valid theory if you don't accept something so thoroughly and convincingly proven as the shape of the Earth, its size and rotation, its orbit around the sun, the heliocentric model of our solar system and all that implies, etc. Good luck.I too subscribe to a flat earth.
In human affairs the sources of success are ever to be found in the fountains of quick resolve and swift stroke; and it seems to be a law, inflexible and inexorable, that he who will not risk cannot win.
John Paul Jones, 1779
The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain
John Paul Jones, 1779
The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain
-
- Guru
- Posts: 2359
- Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2016 8:40 am
- Has thanked: 2022 times
- Been thanked: 797 times
Re: If you accept microevolution
Post #325Thank you for your honesty. I have to ask though, why would you enter into debate if everything is just an illusion? By your very own philosophy you yourself are an illusion and can bring nothing to the table but more pieces of an illusion.Dimmesdale wrote: ↑Fri Mar 12, 2021 10:47 pm But I reject everything. I reject the theory and the evidence pointing to it as well. I reject the whole set of premises underlying it. This is because I have a completely different philosophical framework that essentially says the world is a place of illusion and that scientists are basically in illusion. And an illusion, however fine it may be, however rich and multivaried and intricate, is not factual.
I take it this means you basically just believe whatever makes you happy in the moment?
- Dimmesdale
- Sage
- Posts: 805
- Joined: Mon May 29, 2017 7:19 pm
- Location: Vaikuntha Dham
- Has thanked: 30 times
- Been thanked: 94 times
Re: If you accept microevolution
Post #326In my worldview, illusion is all-pervasive, but it is not total. It is controlled by God. God is the source of truth and the dispeller of illusion. If we submit to him, our illusion is lessened.benchwarmer wrote: ↑Sat Mar 13, 2021 8:35 amThank you for your honesty. I have to ask though, why would you enter into debate if everything is just an illusion? By your very own philosophy you yourself are an illusion and can bring nothing to the table but more pieces of an illusion.Dimmesdale wrote: ↑Fri Mar 12, 2021 10:47 pm But I reject everything. I reject the theory and the evidence pointing to it as well. I reject the whole set of premises underlying it. This is because I have a completely different philosophical framework that essentially says the world is a place of illusion and that scientists are basically in illusion. And an illusion, however fine it may be, however rich and multivaried and intricate, is not factual.
I take it this means you basically just believe whatever makes you happy in the moment?
I am not a solipsist or a disbeliever in logic. Illusion's reign does not extend that far. God does not allow illusion to reign eternally.
- Dimmesdale
- Sage
- Posts: 805
- Joined: Mon May 29, 2017 7:19 pm
- Location: Vaikuntha Dham
- Has thanked: 30 times
- Been thanked: 94 times
Re: If you accept microevolution
Post #327I am not blind to the beauty and elegance of the universe as revealed by space telescopes. For a long time, it was a sacred cow of mine to keep both evolution and the heliocentric model. But now I am more than willing to give those things up after what has been revealed to me. I do not need to have my cake and eat it too. Again though, what our senses reveal in space has a degree of beauty and elegance that can't be denied. Appearance-wise, it is very nice.DrNoGods wrote: ↑Fri Mar 12, 2021 11:22 pm [Replying to Dimmesdale in post #325]
Say no more. I can see how you would not accept evolution as a valid theory if you don't accept something so thoroughly and convincingly proven as the shape of the Earth, its size and rotation, its orbit around the sun, the heliocentric model of our solar system and all that implies, etc. Good luck.I too subscribe to a flat earth.
Although, I am open to the idea that earth is flat and also warped into a spherical shape at a higher dimensional level, in some way. I don't know. I do not know the mind of God, but I try to be as open-minded as possible.
-
- Guru
- Posts: 2359
- Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2016 8:40 am
- Has thanked: 2022 times
- Been thanked: 797 times
Re: If you accept microevolution
Post #328I realize this is completely derailing off the topic of evolution now, but can I ask how you came to believe a god exists if illusion is all-pervasive? More specifically, how did you come to the conclusion that God (I assume the Judeo-Christian one described in the Bible) is the one controlling everything?Dimmesdale wrote: ↑Sat Mar 13, 2021 9:41 am In my worldview, illusion is all-pervasive, but it is not total. It is controlled by God. God is the source of truth and the dispeller of illusion. If we submit to him, our illusion is lessened.
I am not a solipsist or a disbeliever in logic. Illusion's reign does not extend that far. God does not allow illusion to reign eternally.
It just seems odd that you seem to have accepted a (specific?) deity exists on, I assume, nothing more than hearsay and written tales. Yet you seem to eschew the scientific method which you yourself can try to see if it works.
Bringing this back to evolution, perhaps you could comment as to why provisionally accepting the science would harm your faith in any way. The scientific theory of evolution has no comment on how life started or on the existence or not of any deities. This question never seems to get addressed and I can't figure out why. We certainly don't see constant debates over gravitational theory, electromagnetic theory, computer science, etc. Somehow evolution must be seen as a danger to faith, but I honestly can't understand why.
- Dimmesdale
- Sage
- Posts: 805
- Joined: Mon May 29, 2017 7:19 pm
- Location: Vaikuntha Dham
- Has thanked: 30 times
- Been thanked: 94 times
Re: If you accept microevolution
Post #329I have a problem, actually. That problem is that I am 1. not qualified to preach the specifics of my religion, and 2. I do not wish to present my religion to people who do not understand it, generally do not desire it, and who would ridicule it (not everyone on this forum, but some people).benchwarmer wrote: ↑Sat Mar 13, 2021 10:00 amI realize this is completely derailing off the topic of evolution now, but can I ask how you came to believe a god exists if illusion is all-pervasive? More specifically, how did you come to the conclusion that God (I assume the Judeo-Christian one described in the Bible) is the one controlling everything?Dimmesdale wrote: ↑Sat Mar 13, 2021 9:41 am In my worldview, illusion is all-pervasive, but it is not total. It is controlled by God. God is the source of truth and the dispeller of illusion. If we submit to him, our illusion is lessened.
I am not a solipsist or a disbeliever in logic. Illusion's reign does not extend that far. God does not allow illusion to reign eternally.
It just seems odd that you seem to have accepted a (specific?) deity exists on, I assume, nothing more than hearsay and written tales. Yet you seem to eschew the scientific method which you yourself can try to see if it works.
Bringing this back to evolution, perhaps you could comment as to why provisionally accepting the science would harm your faith in any way. The scientific theory of evolution has no comment on how life started or on the existence or not of any deities. This question never seems to get addressed and I can't figure out why. We certainly don't see constant debates over gravitational theory, electromagnetic theory, computer science, etc. Somehow evolution must be seen as a danger to faith, but I honestly can't understand why.
That is why I generally refrain from going into specifics as to what I believe in. For those reasons. I know that is somewhat of a deep dark hole and leads to misunderstanding. But I don't know how it can be helped.
I am not a Christian. I will say as much. About evolution I will only say that in my worldview human beings (and human civilization) have been extant for much, much longer than evolutionists would think (many millions of years in fact). That is according to my worldview and the histories I regard as true.
- Purple Knight
- Prodigy
- Posts: 3543
- Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2020 6:00 pm
- Has thanked: 1144 times
- Been thanked: 735 times
Re: If you accept microevolution
Post #330Yes, allowing people to decide for themselves whether or not the Holocaust happened would be disastrous. It would be disastrous because people actually need to be guilted and beaten over the head into respecting other people. In the future I'm wishing for, that would no longer be needed.Dimmesdale wrote: ↑Thu Mar 11, 2021 6:51 pmTake the Holocaust. From a purely philosophical POV, yes, it is actually POSSIBLE (technically speaking of course) that it didn't happen. But what would occur if we took this posture in the histories? Many things, no doubt. Racist groups would latch onto the alternative history and try to minimize Jewish suffering, downplay their hurts, and just spread hate and sow distrust and racism. That is not a good thing. The fact that we ought to learn from history, shows that the history we do have, means something. Collectively, the heritage we have should be honored. That is just normal, decent human nature in my view.
But I've already admitted we're not there yet.
And the decide-for-yourself thing is really a package deal. If you actually teach people to question as part of science instead of giving them the answers, they'll question the Holocaust too. So, for now, people do need to be spoonfed the answers, instead of being given nothing but the tools to figure things out for themselves. So if not evolution, for now, find something else that should be taught as the answer, as in, you put it down on a test, you get it right.
Teach creation for all I care. It doesn't really matter as long as you also teach them to respect other people.